WHAT TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR…

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) have ruled that Tesco must pay a combined award of over €150,000 to four female workers who were unfairly dismissed from a Tesco-operated café in Co Wexford.

Tesco had dismissed all four woman following CCTV footage found that the Employees did not immediately pay for their breakfasts made up of sausages, rashers, hash browns, beans, pudding and toast, on two dates in May 2013.In her unfair dismissal action, one of the dismissed Employees Lisa Kinsella said she had paid for the food a few days later and also stated this had been common practice. In evidence, a Tesco café manager explained there was no strict policy enforced by Tesco. It was also noted that staff in the canteen were not allowed to carry cash while working. Ms Kinsella told the hearing that all food consumed had been paid for using cash from a tip plate.

Ms Kinsella also stated that had management informed her that what she was doing was against company policy, she would have stopped immediately.

The four women in question had a combined 54 years of service with the retailer and all had exemplary records before the incident which led to their dismissal. The Tribunal awarded the women the following to each of the women:

Emer Lawless - who worked with Tesco since 2002 €61,918.

Ann Dwyer - employed since 1999, €35,550 for her unfair dismissal

Edel Hardiman - who worked with Tesco since 1996 received €15,103.

Finally Lisa Kinsella was awarded €41,000.

All four awards amounted to a total pay out of €153,571 from the retail giant.

HSE Withheld Consultant Pay Increases – EAT Finds

The Labour Court has issued a recommendation in a dispute over salary increments owed to Employees from Ard Aoibhinn Services in Wexford who are members of the INMO (Industrial Professional Technical Union).

This Labour Court hearing came after the INMO referred this dispute to the Labour Relations Commission in May 2007 but the issue was unsuccessfully resolved.

Ard Aoibhinn Services provides for people with intellectual disabilities and special needs. The Organisation receives 90% of its funding from the HSE and it operates under Section 39 of the Health Act 2004.

Ard Aoibhinn Services claimed that due to its financial position it was not in a position to fund Employees entitlement to salary increases stating that it is: “Not in a financial position to fund same without an increase in funding from the HSE”.

Central to this case was the subject of an Organisation that relies on resourcing from an outside authority, in this case the HSE. There has been much talk around this area in recent years where Employees have not received their entitlement with ‘lack of funding’ being cited as the reason.

The Unions in this case argued that the Employees were entitled to their salary increments in line with other Employees in the HSE.

The Labour Court conveyed “considerable sympathy” with the Wexford Company but found that it had no other choice but to acknowledge the fact that the Employees concerned in this dispute were entitled to their increments.

The Labour Court found that: “The Court has no option but to acknowledge the entitlement of the staff concerned to increments and to recommend concession of the Union claim”.

Employers Can Monitor Employees WhatsApp Messages – Court Rules

A recent case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that a company which read a former Employees messages sent while at work, has not violated the Employees rights.

The ruling involved a Romanian engineer, Bogdan Mihai Bárbulescu. In 2008 he was dismissed for sending personal correspondence while at work. He stated that his Employer had breached his right to confidential correspondence, when they accessed his messages and discovered he had used the app to chat to his fiancée and brother on personal matters such as his health and sex life.

In the case the judge stated it was not "unreasonable that an Employer would want to verify that Employees were completing their professional tasks during working hours". A policy provided by the business in question had prohibited the use of the messaging app for personal correspondence.

They court further stated: "The Employer acted within its disciplinary powers since, as the domestic courts found, it had accessed the Yahoo Messenger account on the assumption that the information in question had been related to professional activities and that such access had therefore been legitimate. The court sees no reason to question these findings."

Interestingly this ruling affects all EU countries that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes Ireland.

In issuing their ruling, the European Court of Human Rights stated that unregulated monitoring of Employees would not be acceptable, and called on a set of polices to be drawn up by Organisations that would clearly state what correspondence could be collected.